MAT/87/2026 of MARY JACINTA TOPPO Vs THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS on 24 September 2026

1. The learned advocate representing the respondents do not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. The delay is condoned. The application stands allowed. Re: MAT/87/2026

2. We invited the learned advocates to make submissions on merits of the appeal. Heard the learned advocates.

3. The brief background leading to filing of the intra-court appeal is that the appellant complained against some encroachment by some persons, on government lands. The same was raised before the authorities, and thereafter before the writ court in WPA/639/2023.

4. The Tehsildar had called upon the alleged encroachers/respondents therein to vacate the unauthorized occupation by a fixed date, or in the alternative to appear before the Tehsildar. Therefore, the writ Court was of the view that since the Tehsildar had already acted on the complaint of encroachment lodged by the present appellant, the grievance was taken care of and the writ petition was disposed of.

5. Thereafter, the proceeding before the Tehsildar culminated in orders dated 29.01.2024, passed in R.C.No.2613/TPB/2023, against the alleged encroachers which were put to challenge in WPA/116/2024, WPA/117/2024 and WPA/119/2024. The matters were heard.

6. The learned Single Judge Bench was of the view that copy of the demarcation map was not supplied to the alleged encroacher in the proceeding before the Tehsildar. Therefore, the writ court vide order dated 24.07.2023 directed the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil to re-hear R.C.No.2613/TPB/2023.

7. Pursuant thereto, the entire issue was reconsidered by the Tehsildar which again culminated in an order dated 21.02.2025, for removal of encroachment against alleged encroachers.

8. The order of the Tehsildar was put to challenge by one of the alleged encroachers in WPA/119/2025, before the learned Single Judge Bench.

9. In the writ proceeding, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.04.2025, found grounds for granting an interim protection, which, we are informed by the parties, continues till date. The writ proceeding is still pending.

10. The present appellant was the original complainant regarding alleged encroachment. By way of the present intra court appeal, he is raising a grievance regarding continuance of the interim order in the pending writ proceeding, before the learned Single Judge Bench. He submits that the writ proceeding is being protracted by the writ petitioner to gain undue advantage to continue with the encroachment.

11. The appellant has not made out any individual grievance. The revenue authorities have proceeded in terms of the common order dated 24.07.2023 passed in the earlier writ proceedings. (WPA/116/2024, WPA/117/2024 and WPA/119/2024).

12. The stay order was passed in the WPA/119/2025 and continued in operation since 04.04.2025. The present appellant was not a party to the writ proceeding. There is no alleged encroachment on the appellant’s land, yet he is before this Court raising a grievance regarding continuance of the stay order in the writ proceeding before the learned Single Judge Bench, wherein allegation of encroachment on government lands was the contentious issue. There is a nothing on record to show that there is any alleged encroachment on the writ petitioner’s lands.

13. We also found that the appellant is neither a party in WPA/119/2025, before the learned Single Judge; nor he made any application for being added as a party to the pending writ proceeding.

14. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order passed in the pending writ proceeding (WPA/119/2025), in the present intra-court appeal, at the instance of such an appellant.

15. The present appeal is dismissed.

16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )

( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )

1.